Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753511AbdLSP05 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:26:57 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f196.google.com ([209.85.220.196]:33719 "EHLO mail-qk0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753301AbdLSP0u (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:26:50 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouXWXjhb0Vd/6WQjHljsils6BAdt1hLepa9WMgcOE5cE5Z4hM4kNZs9JuDkJYYpcSbKQLdQkJLXmLq4T12pQFU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <45e2f530-1e72-6933-4367-95aadd709873@st.com> References: <1513610272-7824-1-git-send-email-ludovic.Barre@st.com> <1513610272-7824-4-git-send-email-ludovic.Barre@st.com> <45e2f530-1e72-6933-4367-95aadd709873@st.com> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:26:49 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ePwzUoj31s8sSq9hYKhs9Sf4f5I Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/9] ARM: stm32: prepare stm32 family to welcome armv7 architecture To: Ludovic BARRE Cc: Russell King , Rob Herring , Linus Walleij , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , Gerald Baeza , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , DTML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1838 Lines: 73 On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ludovic BARRE wrote: > > > On 12/18/2017 09:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ludovic Barre >> wrote: >>> >>> From: Ludovic Barre >>> >>> This patch prepares the STM32 machine for the integration of Cortex-A >>> based microprocessor (MPU), on top of the existing Cortex-M >>> microcontroller family (MCU). Since both MCUs and MPUs are sharing >>> common hardware blocks we can keep using ARCH_STM32 flag for most of >>> them. If a hardware block is specific to one family we can use either >>> ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M or ARCH_MULTI_V7 flag. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre >> >> >> Looks good overall. Two more small comments: >> >> >>> >>> +if ARCH_STM32 >>> + >>> config MACH_STM32F429 >>> - bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429" >>> - depends on ARCH_STM32 >>> + bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429" >>> + depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M >>> default y >> >> >> Instead of the explicit dependency for each board, I'd leave the >> surrounding >> 'if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M'. I think you had in v1. > > > As you suggest, I follow mach-at91 example. > The point is on "depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M" ? > You prefer this way: > config MACH_STM32F429 > bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429" if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M > default y > No, that would be wrong, that way you would always enable MACH_STM32F429 when ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M is turned off, which is exactly the wrong way round. What I meant is if ARCH_STM32 if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M config MACH_STM32F429 bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429" config MACH_STM32... ... endif # ARMv7-M if ARCH_MULTI_V7 config MACH_STM32... ... endif # ARMv7-A endif # STM32 Arnd